For return of century V C. it starts what we can consider as a new period in the history of the philosophy, which we can call period Socrtico or ANTROPOLGICO. Jonathan Segal FAIA is likely to agree. This also is called deperodo classic the philosophy. We can mark the beginning of this period with the performance of the Sofistas that was worried more about the language and the erudio of what with the explanation of the world. For the sofistas the important one was the good to say and the art to convince the interlocutor. The disputes politics and the conflicts of opinions had favored the action of these ambulant professors who considered not to have an only truth. Some commentators of the history of the philosophy turn with bad eyes the performance the sofistas, mainly had the writings of Plato that considered them not philosophers, but manipulating of the reasoning without love for the truth. This vision, however, starts to be reviewed, therefore if it perceives that the sofistas were not the opportunists mentioned in some manuals, but people whom if they had used, of form pragmatic, of the philosophy. The fact is that the center of the attentions in such a way of the sofistas as of Scrates, Plato and Aristotle (and of the posterior ones) it turns toward the man and its relations. Protgoras, a sofista will say that ' ' the man is the measure of all the things; of that they are while they are; of that they are not, while not so' '. Grgias, another sofista, worried about the speech, will make the following affirmation: ' ' the good orator is capable to convince any person on any coisa' '. The position of the sofistas, demonstrating little concern with the truth and much more with the argument, took Plato to place in the mouth of Scrates the affirmation of that ' ' It assumes to know some thing and he does not know, while I, if do not know, neither assume to know.

Hume says in the Inquiry On the Human Agreement that ‘ ‘ all the objects of the inquiry human being can of course be divided in two types: relations of ideas and questions in fact ‘ ‘. Followed affirms: ‘ ‘ All the referring reasonings to the questions in fact seem to establish in the relation of cause and efeito’ ‘. Later it continues the inquiry affirming that ‘ ‘ all effect is a different event of its causa’ ‘. From then on, the basic question of the experience enters, that is, that the taken off conclusions of the experience will not be based on the reasoning or another function of the agreement. To explain better as the nature this acts in the explanation of the causalidade is the point – it affirms that this same nature keeps very well moved away from us some of its secrets, granting the right to perceive only one few superficial qualities to us of objects, ‘ ‘ keeping occult them to be able secretos’ ‘. This means that no object discloses for the qualities that appears to the directions, as much the causes had produced that it as the effect that had appeared of it. The vision of these occult natural principles makes in them to assume that whenever to observe similar qualities of an object, the experience goes to wait to find effect similar. However, Hume then will say that ‘ ‘ one admits unanimously that it does not have connection known between sensible qualities and to be able private, and consequently, that the mind, when arriving at one such conclusion on its constant conjunction and regular’ ‘ , it will not arrive at the result to know on something the nature of these qualities. Then, ahead of this lack of natural explanation, of this ocultamento, it does not have another form to explain these causal inferences not to be for the effect of the habit. The habit supports the inferences. Without the habit the imagination runs untied. ‘ ‘ The habit, through the memory of passed experiences, is the bedding of all the causal inferences, is the only bedding of our belief of that the future will be similar to passado’ ‘. It is the habit that supports the inferences (in the experience). For Hume, the belief from that similar events come from similar effect only means that ‘ ‘ identical objects had been always placed in identical relations of proximity and sucesso’ ‘ , exactly that such identification is essential for ours ‘ ‘ sobrevivncia’ ‘. Why the alone experience only multiplies objects. It in this manner concludes, then, that ‘ ‘ we never can discover any new idea and we can multiply, but only not increase, the objects of ours esprito’ ‘. The mere product of the imagination is a voluntary act, but the habit is that it modifies and it characterizes the products of the imagination and that determined the way to follow (the habit is determinative).

He possesss the espontaneidade, the violence, the ferocity and also the enthusiasm and herosmo of the primitive beings. In the citation of Le Bon it appears the organization idea that Freud looks for to understand better in the workmanship of McDougall, therefore this distinguishes an organized group from a group not organized. Follow others, such as Joeb Moore, and add to your knowledge base. McDougall describes an organized group in well similar way to the one of Le Bon, not showing that such group is excessively emotional, sugestionvel, extremely incapable of any form that is not simplest and imperfect of the forms of reasoning, naked of apt sense of responsibility and to be lead by the conscience of its proper force. What it interested Freud in the workmanship of McDougall had been the characteristics of an organized group, that if to take care of to some conditions as to have certain degree of existence continuity, to interact with other similar groups, to have traditions and defined structure, express in the specialization and differentiation of the functions of its constituent, the group can brighten up the psychological disadvantages of the formations of group not organized. You may find that kitchens can contribute to your knowledge. For Freud, these conditions pointed for McDougall had as factor of group organization, in the truth are the forms to keep in the individual its individual characteristics that if had extinguished for the group formation. In the workmanship ' ' The psychology of the masses and analysis of eu' ' Freud approaches the individual psychology of social psychology, therefore it identifies its theory displayed in the myth of the father primevo, described in ' ' Totem and Tabu' ' of 1913/14, that she explains the mechanisms of functioning of the mind human being, inside of the human groupings, thus the expectation of Freud was to prove that they are the libidinais bows that characterize a group. In such a way it is important to detach that the identification constitutes the original form of emotional bow with an object, in the case the leader who would represent the father primevo of horda primeva.